Playing the politics of whaling
At the International Whaling Commission meeting in Madeira
As Bill Clinton might say: "it's the politics, stupid".
Or perhaps Tony Blair would adopt the form of his statement of priorities for the 1997 UK general election to read "politics, politics, politics".
The conference hall here at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting rings with statements about what's right and wrong, what ought to be done, how others are failing to abide by their moral obligations, and different visions of the world based on traditions and ethical stances.
So on Wednesday morning, as I sit listening to statements from non-governmental organisations that represent - or claim to represent - various constituencies on the pro- and anti- sides, we hear, for example, contentions that Western nations are wrong to offer port services to the "pirates" of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, that regulating subsistence hunting by indigenous groups is "demeaning" and "neo-colonial", and the decades-long argument that anti-whaling countries always act in good faith and pro-whaling countries do not.
Judging by comments and e-mails coming into the BBC - not least those on my last blog post (for which many thanks) and on this week's Green Room article - statements aired here are a pretty good reflection of genuinely-held views in the big world outside this hall.
But what holds the key to sorting out the mess that the IWC has been in for years surely doesn't lie in expressions, however incisively phrased, of right and wrong.
Only politics - or perhaps more accurately, politics, politics, politics - can do that.
Time after time, for example, environmental organisations say that Iceland, Japan and Norway should just stop whaling.
It plays well in the speakers' own constituencies and often in their home countries; but having heard it 1,000 times, what realistically is the chance that the 1,001th utterance will see whaling captains suddenly stand up, bend an ear to the wind and say "you know what - they're right", before turning their harpoons into gardening forks and their boats into pleasure cruisers?
And how likely is it that on hearing yet another contention that science would support the limited resumption of commercial hunting, the countries and individuals who worked for years to ban the practice will suddenly agree and wish Japanese harpooners good speed as they head into the Southern Ocean?
I had a chat yesterday with someone equipped with a long and substantial understanding of the conservation movement and more wisdom than most of us can aspire to.
"I've said to youngsters in the field 'don't think you're going to change anything just because you're right'," she said.
"They look at me askance but that's the reality. It's a political issue and you have to play the politics."
If you feel passionately about whales and whaling - or about any other conservation issue - this can be a hard point to see.
To bring things into focus more clearly, think of something you would like to change in the world and ask yourself how, realistically, you would go about doing it - especially if it's going on in another country with an unfamiliar history and different traditions.
Will standing outside an embassy waving banners do it? Will writing a pamphlet do it? Will going to the place concerned and telling people to stop do it?
Hmm... probably not. So you have to be cuter about finding a point of entry to the issue, a foothold you can gain... and now you're playing politics.
The whaling issue has been around for so long that every bloc has people who have grown very cute, and the best observers read the opposing side's strategy like a book printed in the boldest type.
That means they're also cute enough to know that their opponents are often prepared to go much further in private than their public statements would indicate. Without that understanding, the current compromise talks would not even exist.
Strident demands are, properly used, part of the political game - any political game.
What they must not become - and there is a danger of this in the IWC arena, because not everybody involved, particularly on the anti-whaling side, appears to understand the importance of reading runes and giving clues and playing the long game - is a wall that blocks exploration of wiggle room.
At the appropriate time, in effective negotiations, the grandstanding stops and the private words begin - and that, often, is when the real progress is made.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Wise observations -- I completely concur.
Complain about this comment
smells like the faint stench of appeasement to me. are you paid by WWF for a living?
Complain about this comment
For me it is not a matter of the "cuteness" of the animals but of their intelligence and their suffering. Cetaceans are highly intelligent animals and let's not forget that human beings are also highly intelligent animals. Dogs which are likely to be less intelligent have been shown to have the intellectual abilities of a 3-year old human child. Would these same people that hunt and kill whales eat little human children? Surely not! I don't understand how humans can not extend the same courtesy to other intelligent animals!
Complain about this comment
Governments will listen only if they can see a direct link with THEMSELVES and the issue. Governments are constantly juggling with cost cutting and expenditure to either saving money or making money for their patch of turf. None human species come lower in the pecking order because they cannot be shown to benefit the economy. Change the sales pitch for non humans and then perhaps governments will take notice.
Complain about this comment
As I wrote commenting the previous post, I have the impression that scientists, also those of the Scientific Committee of the IWC, make good research, but the politicians then follow their agendas ... and back it with "sound science" only if it suits them. And any "sound science" of the opposing part is not going to convince the, not one bit ...
I have a feeling that by now there are "pro-whaling" and "against-whaling" nations and their representatives at the "political" meeting of the IWC are pressured in either side ...
At the appropriate time, in effective negotiations, the grandstanding stops and the private words begin - and that, often, is when the real progress is made.
I hope so, but as much as I know, the last time this happend was through the (at "home" not very well understood) diplomatic intervention of the Swiss delegation (always criticized for being "to neutral"), which mediated between fronts.
But by now ... as you yourself write in the Science News page:
some members of this bloc are concerned that successive Canberra governments have made whaling into such an emotive public issue that Australia now has no room for diplomatic manoeuvre.
... just Australia?
Hasn't for instance Japan gone exactly the same path, just for the "pro-whaling" stance?
I think the smartest move by Greenpeace was not to chase the Japanese at sea, but to organise an opposition in Japan
Why do people catch whales or are in favour of whaling?
Because it gives them a profit (meat, money, political, whatever)
If, as it is in the Japanese case, an economical-political one (triade politics-science in the form of the Whale Research Institute -commerce), getting people to refuse to eat whale meat, and to oppose the subsidies for the whaling research would bring much more than any scientific proof brought by the opposing side, as sound as it migh be. And even more than attacking whaling ships: this will bring maybe some support (also financial support) from the outside world, but the risk of a coalition of forces inside Japan, against the foreing attacker is great.
So: I you want to fight whaling, best to support the locals which are against it. Especially, I suppose, in a "island-nation" like Japan ...
The future of the IWC ... I don't know. Right now it's a "stale-mate" ... but which suits all participants (as you mentioned already some years ago ..)
Complain about this comment
Probably it would be more correct writing that you related this opinion of the IWC (a "stale-mate" that suits everybody), not that you "stated" it, from which one might infer that this is your own opinion about it ... Sorry! Unfortunately I cannot find the "in depth" article in question, or was it an audio-interview? I think from the time of the IWC meeting in Alaska.
Complain about this comment
Asterionella, I think this is the article you're looking for - many thanks for your interest.
Complain about this comment
"Jackson's last UK hit to really cross over to the mainstream was a Christmas number one in 1995.
Written as a protest against environmental destruction, the song's simple, wordless hook is a plaintive howl of despair - with none of the promise of redemption Jackson saw in Man In The Mirror.
As it builds to its catastrophic climax, the choir is no longer there for moral support - they are harbingers of doom summoned from the seventh circle of hell."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8120151.stm
- Vaya con Dios Michael -
Complain about this comment
Yesterday I had a nice lunch in Sortland at the Signal Cafe. Hvalsnadder in brown gravy with chips and a garden salad with coffee 109,-Nkr. That's about 10euro. Here in Norway Minke whale is like any other meat. Just as it has been for generations. Check the details and numbers of how many Minke whales are of our coast and how many are harvested before your condem us. Have a nice summer!
Complain about this comment
Some countries use history, culture to continue cruelty against and exploitation of other species. Japan is wrong in the whaling issue. What if one day, some society was so powerful that they could do whatever they wanted and for some reason decided that Japanese humans would taste delicious or that something in the Japanese people helped that society with their economic needs? I suspect that Japanese would not like that, but then why should not such society engage in that type of behaviour?
Eating meat may have been a necessity a long time ago when humans were no different than other animals. But now we are more "advanced" and it is our obligation as humans to take care of this planet and all its beings. We should be gardners of this garden, for after all, this is the only place we have and if we don't take care of it, we will just disappear that much faster.
Complain about this comment
ofilha #10
Hi Ofilha; some heartfelt points.
Re: "Some countries use history, culture to continue cruelty against and exploitation of other species."
Yes; but we have a problem complaining because our countries have been cruel and exploited others for years and years. Now we tell others to stop.
Re: "a long time ago when humans were no different than other animals. But now we are more 'advanced'..."
Advanced we may be, but still animals. We try to set morals from a higher ground, but many of our activities reflect our animal nature. The trouble is we are now animals with tremendous tools but very immature control over their use.
Re: "...this is the only place we have and if we don't take care of it..."
Yes, it's hard to understand why people are not working together as opposed to squabbling about this.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
whaling ban to be lifted.imagine eh?they rallied to end canadas seal hunt,and the same hypocrits are planning to allow hunting whales!canada should refuse trade with the EU,and drop ties with japan.deport the EU's envoys,as well as japans.and stop all shipping from the two in canadian waters.and seize thier assets in canada
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS